This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Bomb-making instructions on the Internet appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 23 February 2010 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
I saw this at DYK and predict if it makes it to the main page it will get quite a few hits and questions. To preempt them and improve the quality of the article, I have some suggestions:
The quote accompanied by information in the article that it is illegal to disseminate info makes me more uneasy. I may ask for further input at WP:AN, just to be safe. -- Moni3 ( talk) 16:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I've just removed a quote which purported to be instructions to make a bomb. I really don't think that this is suitable material to be included in Wikipedia without a strong rationale, and none at all was provided - it was simply placed in the 'Moral philosophy' section and not linked to the content. Nick-D ( talk) 08:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I do not think it meets the standards of NPOV to highlight one particular website in the lede, especially when it involves the name of an ethnicity which the article does not suggest has any prominent involvement in the posting of bomb-making instructions on the internet. Sherurcij ( speaker for the dead) 07:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I think your edits are over-the-top POV. You supplied the reference. Then you delete repeatedly the first source used by the reference to reflect its point. Specifically, you keep on deleting language that says:
Typically, in Europe the instructions are written and hosted by far right hate groups, extreme left groups, and sites such as "The Arab Stampede", [1] though the Council of Europe found in its 2004 study that the websites of right-wing radicals were a particularly good source for bomb-making instructions ....
Your edits you indicate are because you don't want to highlight the Arab aspect of what the ref points to. But you are happy to reference the right-wing aspect (though not clarify that Arab fundamentalism is included in what is meant by that). I'm disappointed; I had known you to be a less POV editor, but this is really over the top. I've deleted it entirely as a compromise. If that doesn't suit you, let's bring in third parties rather than edit war. If it goes back, it should reflect what I reflected -- btw, your continued deletions of the fact that the study is six years old, though not pov, were similarly ill-considered, as six years is a long time on the internet as you know.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 07:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
That's simply incorrect. As if the Madrid train bombing that killed nearly 200 people and wounded over 1,000 wasn't notable -- and that was over five years ago. A simple gnews search show that's wrong. Even the NYC subway would-be-bomber -- this month's news -- downloaded his bomb-making info from the internet. What was left out of the article reflects strong POV at work. The sort that drives major holes through AGF suppositions, and rebuts the presumption.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 10:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
1) Yes, there is a difference. 2) The title of the article is not DOWNLOADING instructions from the internet. 3) Its all part of a process. If the material is not written, in whatever form, there is no bombing. If it is written and put on the internet, but not downloaded, there is no bombing. If it is written and put on the internet and downloaded, but nothing is done with it, there is no bombing. If it is written and put on the internet and downloaded and the instructions followed properly and it is detonated in the presence of people -- there is a problem. The article could address any one or more parts of the process. It could address the al Qaeda How To book being put up (I think it may have still left that out) on the internet, or it could discuss the Madrid bombers having downloaded the instructions from the internet and killed/wounded well over 1K people. By its title, it encompasses both.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 04:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa ( talk) 02:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Bomb-making instructions on the internet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
How to make a bomb Widowdove ( talk) 18:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi all. 'Critics of the prosecution of Sherman Austin, an American anarchist charged with publishing instructions on the Internet, have pointed out that the Wikipedia article on Molotov cocktails contains more detailed instructions on the construction of homemade explosives, than Austin's website did' Sounds a bit self-reference-y. What normally happens here? It is someone outside of Wikipedia referring to wikipedia, but should this be here? (I am a new editor, please tell me if I am being an idiot so I know what usually happens here)
JonsterMonster (
talk)
04:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I think it's pretty well agreed upon that academic information should be presented with as little bias as possible. Of course, it's impossible to remove all, but I do think there's an unnecessary amount here. Primarily in the belief that distributing instructions should be illegal; a point I agree with, but don't see as correct to try to prove in a Wikipedia article.
A couple examples to evaluate:
1. The first section starts with an appropriately objective paragraph, but in the next line inserts bombing statistics, as if to say "there's a reason it should be illegal." The statistics here aren't warranted and should rather be intentionally searched for by a reader if they so please, rather than presented here as if to try to sway the reader a certain way. I'd suggest removing this line.
2. Another would be the rather 'artistically' placed quote in the Legislation section. You could argue it's just showing a common view in governments, but it still doesn't warrant it being there, especially having its own space in the section to advertise itself. Its placement and use makes me think the article is trying to prove a point rather than teach me a history.
Could be a few more spots of bias, but these are a couple big ones I found. Catburger0 ( talk) 01:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Bomb-making instructions on the Internet appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 23 February 2010 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
I saw this at DYK and predict if it makes it to the main page it will get quite a few hits and questions. To preempt them and improve the quality of the article, I have some suggestions:
The quote accompanied by information in the article that it is illegal to disseminate info makes me more uneasy. I may ask for further input at WP:AN, just to be safe. -- Moni3 ( talk) 16:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I've just removed a quote which purported to be instructions to make a bomb. I really don't think that this is suitable material to be included in Wikipedia without a strong rationale, and none at all was provided - it was simply placed in the 'Moral philosophy' section and not linked to the content. Nick-D ( talk) 08:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I do not think it meets the standards of NPOV to highlight one particular website in the lede, especially when it involves the name of an ethnicity which the article does not suggest has any prominent involvement in the posting of bomb-making instructions on the internet. Sherurcij ( speaker for the dead) 07:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I think your edits are over-the-top POV. You supplied the reference. Then you delete repeatedly the first source used by the reference to reflect its point. Specifically, you keep on deleting language that says:
Typically, in Europe the instructions are written and hosted by far right hate groups, extreme left groups, and sites such as "The Arab Stampede", [1] though the Council of Europe found in its 2004 study that the websites of right-wing radicals were a particularly good source for bomb-making instructions ....
Your edits you indicate are because you don't want to highlight the Arab aspect of what the ref points to. But you are happy to reference the right-wing aspect (though not clarify that Arab fundamentalism is included in what is meant by that). I'm disappointed; I had known you to be a less POV editor, but this is really over the top. I've deleted it entirely as a compromise. If that doesn't suit you, let's bring in third parties rather than edit war. If it goes back, it should reflect what I reflected -- btw, your continued deletions of the fact that the study is six years old, though not pov, were similarly ill-considered, as six years is a long time on the internet as you know.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 07:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
That's simply incorrect. As if the Madrid train bombing that killed nearly 200 people and wounded over 1,000 wasn't notable -- and that was over five years ago. A simple gnews search show that's wrong. Even the NYC subway would-be-bomber -- this month's news -- downloaded his bomb-making info from the internet. What was left out of the article reflects strong POV at work. The sort that drives major holes through AGF suppositions, and rebuts the presumption.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 10:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
1) Yes, there is a difference. 2) The title of the article is not DOWNLOADING instructions from the internet. 3) Its all part of a process. If the material is not written, in whatever form, there is no bombing. If it is written and put on the internet, but not downloaded, there is no bombing. If it is written and put on the internet and downloaded, but nothing is done with it, there is no bombing. If it is written and put on the internet and downloaded and the instructions followed properly and it is detonated in the presence of people -- there is a problem. The article could address any one or more parts of the process. It could address the al Qaeda How To book being put up (I think it may have still left that out) on the internet, or it could discuss the Madrid bombers having downloaded the instructions from the internet and killed/wounded well over 1K people. By its title, it encompasses both.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 04:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa ( talk) 02:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Bomb-making instructions on the internet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
How to make a bomb Widowdove ( talk) 18:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi all. 'Critics of the prosecution of Sherman Austin, an American anarchist charged with publishing instructions on the Internet, have pointed out that the Wikipedia article on Molotov cocktails contains more detailed instructions on the construction of homemade explosives, than Austin's website did' Sounds a bit self-reference-y. What normally happens here? It is someone outside of Wikipedia referring to wikipedia, but should this be here? (I am a new editor, please tell me if I am being an idiot so I know what usually happens here)
JonsterMonster (
talk)
04:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I think it's pretty well agreed upon that academic information should be presented with as little bias as possible. Of course, it's impossible to remove all, but I do think there's an unnecessary amount here. Primarily in the belief that distributing instructions should be illegal; a point I agree with, but don't see as correct to try to prove in a Wikipedia article.
A couple examples to evaluate:
1. The first section starts with an appropriately objective paragraph, but in the next line inserts bombing statistics, as if to say "there's a reason it should be illegal." The statistics here aren't warranted and should rather be intentionally searched for by a reader if they so please, rather than presented here as if to try to sway the reader a certain way. I'd suggest removing this line.
2. Another would be the rather 'artistically' placed quote in the Legislation section. You could argue it's just showing a common view in governments, but it still doesn't warrant it being there, especially having its own space in the section to advertise itself. Its placement and use makes me think the article is trying to prove a point rather than teach me a history.
Could be a few more spots of bias, but these are a couple big ones I found. Catburger0 ( talk) 01:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)